On 11/06/13 11:55, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 11/06/13 11:43, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 07/06/13 16:13, Petr Salinger wrote: >>> Package: gnome-terminal >>> Version: 3.8.2-1 >>> Severity: serious >>> Tags: patch >>> User: debian-...@lists.debian.org >>> Usertags: kfreebsd >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> the current version fails to build on GNU/kFreeBSD. >>> The F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC is not widespread fcntl, see also changes between >>> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/fcntl.html >>> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/fcntl.html >> >> Seems like a POSIX.2008 addition. >> >>> Please allow also fallback variant. >> >> The patch seems fine but given that F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC has been implemented in >> FreeBSD[1], I wonder if the __linux__ test shouldn't be changed to a >> HAVE_F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC check (or to a hurd one). How long do you think it'll >> take >> for Debian's freebsd kernel to have that? > > Actually Hurd has had support for F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC for a while, so this should > either be __FreeBSD_kernel__ (or whatever) or a HAVE_F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC (with the > appropriate configure check) or perhaps even an #ifdef F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC > (assuming > it will be a define in kfreebsd, it is one on linux and hurd).
Given the following from [1] "The <fcntl.h> header shall define the following symbolic constants for the cmd argument used by fcntl(). The values shall be unique and shall be suitable for use in #if preprocessing directives" I say we can just do an #ifdef F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC I'll adjust the patch for that and upload. Cheers, Emilio [1] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/fcntl.h.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
